get_page_section

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/safe, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior beyond them — the two-stage heading matching fallback and the conditional include_subsections semantics ('if the section's own body is empty... return subsections' text'). It omits the not-found behavior, keeping it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, then a compact Args block. Only the 'subsections always lists the nested headings' aside is slightly under-explained relative to its brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given three params at 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the needed parameter and matching detail; only the failure case is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, documenting all three parameters including the non-obvious conditional meaning of include_subsections and its default, plus an example slug. Minor gap: no guidance on heading format edge cases.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Return one section') and clarifies the lookup semantics versus the whole-page sibling get_page. It doesn't name siblings explicitly, but 'one section' vs a page-level tool is easily inferred.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The matching rule (exact case-insensitive first, else heading containing the text) gives useful context for when this tool will succeed, but it never says when to prefer it over get_page or search, nor what happens on no match.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.